Yeah - Checking M* I get figures (for OSDAX) at or close to msf & Carew388. (1.78 @3 years and 1.33 @5). Sorry for the misstatement. Now, if somebody can explain to me how Lipper could screw up those numbers, I’d feel better. Have used the MW / Lipper data for years and never encountered a problem like that.
As far as Invesco closing, I’m new there, having transferred in thru the merger with Oppenheimer. I’ve been critical of Oppenheimer for years, due to higher fees and their horrible ‘07-‘09 performance. But, as I said earlier, I’ve had a relatively small % of assets with them since around ‘95. I’ve always invested directly with the houses rather than thru a brokerage. Old school I guess. So yes, I’d miss them if they closed completely. I like and use 3 of their specialty funds. With those types of funds, the ability to move in and out nearly at will is helpful. That said, as I simplify things and move monies to TRP (a process already in progress) $$ will be coming out of Invesco.

All good stuff above.
I benchmark against a decent 40/60 allocation fund (TRRIX). Mainly I’m interested in having similar or lower volatility than that fund exhibits most days and keeping slightly ahead of it in total return longer term. I’ve owned it before, but don’t currently own it.
At 70+ I own no all-stock funds, unless you count minor exposure to some specialty funds (gold, infrastructure, etc.)
My several balanced funds now have a portfolio weighting that 30 years ago would have been invested in stock funds. Among them is PRWCX, which is probably the most aggressive one and probably better classified as a “stock” fund.
I can’t think of any classic allocation funds I currently own. But I’m not opposed to owning them either. Actually, it may be easier for some to tolerate the swings in an allocation or balanced fund over time than to tolerate the gyrations a stock fund might experience. If you’re comfortable running both stock and bond funds side by side, nothing wrong with that.
No advice @Art except to settle on some kind of benchmark suitable to age, circumstance and temperament. Comparing your returns against a reasonable benchmark is a lot less trying than comparing them to any particular hot fund or market at any given time. The benchmark you use might be a favorite fund, an index, or a collection of 2 or 3 of those averaged together.

I generally suggest caution when evaluating a fund with recent poor performance. That recent performance distorts the longer term figures.
Looking at IVWIX year by year, it's done acceptable or better most years. 2012 was a year like this one, 84th percentile then, 86th percentile YTD. M* writes that this fund lags in up markets such as 2012 and that would seem to apply to this year as well.
Consistent with that, the fund currently holds over 30% in cash alone (almost no bonds), and 2/3 of its equity is abroad. That seems quite defensive, positioned for interest rate hikes and the US market peaking. In six months that may look very prescient or it may look somewhat foolish. Regardless, this seems to fit the fund's overall profile. This is not your typical world allocation fund and it doesn't seem to have changed its style recently.
If you're looking for a pure stock fund, would you consider IVIQX? If not, then perhaps it's the managers' style that you don't like and not necessarily world allocation funds in general.
With respect to domestic allocation funds, I usually start with VWELX as my benchmark. Is that a fund you would be happy with? If so, then again it may be the fund (FPACX) and not the category that troubles you.
If in using separate stock and bond funds you'd have the same stock/bond mix as before, then you'd expect to do about the same as with allocation funds generally. Personally I prefer separate stock and bond funds, but I do keep eyeing Wellington. It's more a question of how one wants to manage one's portfolio than a question of performance.

I have 2 allocation funds, IVWIX and FPACX. Both long term holds over 5 years Both funds are 30%+ cash/bonds. On down days they sometimes have worse performance than some of my all stock funds. I am not seeing the advantage of having an allocation fund, at least my 2 choices. 7 of my 11 funds had better performance today. FPACX is in the middle of the pack YTD and IVWIX is my worst performer YTD. 3 year returns are not much different. Buy/sell/hold these funds? What are your thoughts? I am thinking separate stock and bond funds.

It's said to learn that there will be no more Stock Market Recaps after next week. I have enjoyed reading them for a good number of years and said to see them go.
However, there is CNBC "Morning Squawk" that one can sign up to receive each morning via email that recaps former market activity and current events along with what's happening today and for the coming week.
For me, I find it enjoyable reading as well.

Per Yahoo Finance BBBMX and TRBUX have better 3 and 5 year returns than OSDAX.

I don’t know anything about BBBMX. But Lipper puts OSDAX solidly ahead of TRBUX for 3 and 5 years. (Neither has been around yet for 10 years.)
3 years: OSDAX: 3.33% TRBUX: 2.32%
5 years: OSDAX: 2.48% TRBUX: 1.80%

I just wasted a lot of time thanks to M*'s dropping of the "Purchase" tab for researching MFs. Going to both Schwab and TDA I found that AFOIX is available only to institutional investors at the former and not at all at the latter. My surfing to Alger finally got me the the symbol AFOZX, which is the share class for mere mortals. This mortal was interested in the fund, in part due to reading the MarketWatch piece on mid-caps linked above. Zhang spent 14 years in small and mid caps at Brown Capital before Alger hired her away in 2015. I can't think of a better place to train. Her Alger small-mid fund has been great. In any event, AFOZX is currently available NL but with the transaction fee at the two above brokerages, a deterrent for me. Maybe the fund will become NTF if it grows.

All valid comments by @msf & @carew388 above. Oppenheimer became the poster child for bad faith investment management re the monies investors had entrusted to some of their bond funds when things went south in 2008. Their high income fund may have set some kind of “record” for year-over-year losses. A real shame. As I recall, there were some successful lawsuits.
I’ve not been much impressed over the years with Oppenheimer’s offerings. I started a small IRA with them in the mid 90s after they introduced one of the first commodities funds. Soared like an eagle for a few years before crashing and burning (now closed). The initial investment has grown decently over those 20-25 years. I do use their OPGSX, OREAX and OQGAX (which msf mentioned). While the last one hasn’t done well since they acquired it a couple years ago, it had a stellar record, as I recall, before that time.
What prompted me to post here again is that I think I’ve actually uncovered a pretty competive offering while digging through Invesco’s lineup. It’s their ultra-short OSDAX which is offered at no-load and carries a .29 ER. Miracle of miracles! It’s rare that these guys can top the offering of TRP in any category. Price’s (very similar) ultra-short, TRBUX, actually carries a higher ER. I’ve shifted a bit into OSDAX in part because it would facilitate doing a transfer at some future point from Invesco to T. Rowe.
PS - It strikes me that the low fees on OSDAX may amount to somewhat of a “loss leader” for them. If you move no-load money from it into another of their funds, you’re likely to pay a load for whatever you choose to go into.

I agree that sometime in the next 10 years the market will gain only 5% and possibly lose up to 25% but its not clear how believing that will make me money or even save me some. Getting the level right is useless if you get the time wrong.

FYI: U.S. stocks turned lower Friday after reports that a Chinese trade delegation would be returning home earlier than expected, souring hopes that Washington and Beijing were moving toward a trade deal.
The news capped off an eventful week that featured turmoil in money markets and an attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia that triggered dramatic swings in crude prices.
The blue-chip index fell 160 points, or 0.59%, in afternoon trading. The S&P 500 dropped 0.50%, while the Nasdaq Composite slumped 0.80%.
Stocks had opened higher but then dropped sharply after news agencies reported that Chinese agriculture officials had canceled a planned trip to Montana and were returning home.
All three indexes are on pace to close the week lower, after three consecutive weeks of gains. Still, both the Dow and S&P 500 are within 1.5% of their closing records reached in July.
Investors snapped up assets seen as safe havens. The yield on U.S. 10-year Treasurys fell to 1.758%, from 1.777% on Thursday.
Stock moves were muted this week, but volatility broke out in the oil market and an obscure corner of the financial system that banks rely on for short-term funding.
Rates on short-term repurchase agreements briefly jumped from around 2% to nearly 10% at the beginning of the week. The spike was caused by technical factors: corporate tax payments came due to the U.S. Treasury just as Treasury debt auctions settled, leading to large transfers of cash from the banking system.
U.S. crude oil slipped less than 0.1% to $58.09 a barrel on Friday after days of major price swings. Following an attack on key Saudi production facilities last weekend, oil futures spiked nearly 15%--their largest one-day move in years. But since then they have pared gains as Saudi officials have pledged to restore production to regular levels.
Netflix was one of the worst-performing stocks in the S&P 500 on Friday, down 6.2%. The streaming company has been under pressure in recent months amid a decline in its U.S. subscribers.
Overseas, the benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 gained 0.3%. In Asia, the Shanghai Composite and Japan’s Nikkei both rose 0.2%.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-20/your-evening-briefing
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-and-sp-500-set-to-test-record-highs-as-trump-administration-said-to-exempt-china-products-from-tariffs-2019-09-20/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-rise-at-the-end-of-a-bumpy-week-11568968985
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/asia-stocks-set-to-edge-higher-bond-yields-drift-markets-wrap
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/the-big-picture/stock-market-falls-on-china-trade-setback/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/stock-market-wall-street-in-focus-as-us-china-trade-talks-resume.html
Reuters:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-drops-after-china-cancels-visit-to-montana-farmland-idUKKBN1W51B6
U.K:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/british-blue-chips-dented-by-sterlings-brief-brexit-uplift-idUKKBN1W50NQ
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-log-fifth-week-of-gains-novo-nordisk-shines-idUSKBN1W51WY
Asia:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/asia-pacific-stocks-set-to-trade-mixed-amid-us-china-trade-jitters.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/bonds-treasury-yields-fall-as-traders-monitor-us-china-trade-talks.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/forex-markets-federal-reserve-brexit-in-focus.html
Oil
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/oil-markets-middle-east-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/gold-markets-dollar-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

We all look at different things and have our own biases, which is my way of saying that what follows are my less than complimentary thoughts about Rochester and Steelpath (two of Oppenheimer's acquisitions, including some of the terminated funds above). So the comments aren't about all of Oppenheimer's funds, just a couple of significant segments.
Rochester funds often show up at the top of muni fund performance screens. In a category of funds that should be sedate, these are high octane funds without adequate warning labels. From Oppenheimer's own PR: "Unlike many of its competitors, the team chooses to invest across the entire credit spectrum and its historic results have often been driven by the high levels of tax-free yield that non-rated and below-investment-grade securities have offered."
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?storyID=21319&template=article&bhcp=1
The lack of warning labels has landed these funds in hot water.

Shareholders accused OppenheimerFunds, a New York-based unit of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co, of misleading them about the safety of six funds, ignoring the funds’ stated objectives and risk guidelines, and inflating asset values. ...
The six funds were: AMT-Free Municipals, Rochester Fund Municipals, Rochester AMT-Free New York Municipal, New Jersey Municipal, Pennsylvania Municipal and Rochester National Municipals.
Rochester National specialized in high-yield securities, and remains one of the biggest funds in its class, with about $5.7 billion of assets as of July 31.
The other five funds were designed to preserve shareholder principal by investing in high-quality securities.
According to Morningstar Inc, the six funds’ Class A shares fell between 29 percent and 48.9 percent in 2008, ranking near the bottom of their respective categories.

Reuters, Aug 29, 2013, OppenheimerFunds settles crisis-era muni fund lawsuits for $89.5 mln
SteelPath strike me as a way to vitiate the tax advantages of MLPs (in the pursuit of simplicity), leaving no compelling reason to invest in them.

Once MLPs are wrapped in a mutual fund or an ETF, their distributions are taxed at the fund's corporate rate, and what is left is paid to shareholders as a distribution. That payment then is taxed as dividend income, thereby effectively nullifying the main reason for investing in an MLP in the first place.

https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20130414/REG/130419957/mlps-in-mutual-funds-pose-hazards
I'd guess it's more a combination of small size and poor performance that's driving the closures. Oppenheimer created its own MLP fund ILPAX a couple of years after acquiring Steelpath, and it's still a tiny fund. But it's been doing better than the similarly microscopic OMLPX, which Oppenheimer is shuttering.
https://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/energy-limited-partnership/$FOCA$LP.aspx
Invesco is leaving in place its two non-MLP infractructure funds, one home grown (GIZAX), and one from Oppenheimer (OQGAX). So there seems to be more considerations than just overlap in doing this housecleaning. Also given Oppenheimer could have merged funds together and shielded investors from tax consequences of liquidation if it felt the closed funds overlapped enough with the surviving funds.
Invesco fund lineup
Related (another tiny MLP fund at the bottom of the performance rankings):
James Alpha MLP Portfolio to cease selling of shares
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/52746/james-alpha-mlp-portfolio-to-cease-selling-of-shares

Hi guys,
Have added to GBILX and started new positions in YAFFX and PTIAX. I have owned these before. I think interest rates will fall and value will rise.....just me thinking. And the Dukester thinks that the Blonde One will be in for 4 more years. Soooooo, be cool. Is that 60's or what?
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. Fido had John Hancock on. Large caps are in and mid quality was stressed over and over. And no overseas except healthcare. Bonds, yes, at 1.80 on the 10-year. No banks or small caps.

Part of GS forward forecast for markets in 2011
Interest rates won't be hiked until 2013
Goldman Sachs
While interest rates won't move until 2013, the yield on the U.S. 10-year will rise from 3.0% to 3.75% by the end of 2011, and 4.25% by Q4 2012.
>>>10 year yields below
--- Jan. 2011 @3.4%
--- Jan. 2012 @1.9%
--- Jan. 2013 @1.9%
--- Jan. 2014 @3.0%
--- Jan. 2015 @2.0%
--- Sep. 19, 2019 @1.78%
The above forecast by GS, versus what happened, caused some serious winners and losers, depending on where one was invested or NOT in bonds.
@hank
Mostly agree with you regarding Mr. Grant. Have read him over the years, but don't find I would have made more money following his thoughts.
We investors have our luck periods, sprinkled with some actual properly thinking and observations, including power houses like Goldman Sachs.
I remain, "this time is different."
As of recent, I'm still trying to get my head around how the "repo transactions" sector functions and statements from those who understand this area regarding current interventions by our Fed. reserve system.
Have a good remainder.
Catch

@Simon

There are thousands of funds which have beaten the index over multiple time frames.

I seriously doubt that. There are often hundreds, perhaps thousands, over a specific time period, but rarely over multiple time periods. The fund that beats the benchmark over the past five years is rarely the same one that beats it over the next five. The lack of consistency is extremely problematic for the average investor and the end result is the inexperienced chase performance in active management and are punished for it.

@Simon, how does using indexes as a contrarian indicator work? If most managed funds mimic or can't beat an index, why is that a buy signal for managed funds?

Now that passive stock fund assets have exceeded active for first time it is anecdotal evidence you should be moving money away from the herd into active managers who can beat the index. There are thousands of funds which have beaten the index over multiple time frames. As an investor of 40+ years this concept seems totally logical to me.
Jeff Saut writes a good, if long winded, article about this.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/09/09/zebras

'Tis that time of year again! Some preliminary estimates are now available. As in years past, please alphabetize your funds. To make it easier for readers post (new) next to your additions to differentiate it from your older existing posts. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts their information.
1919 Funds:
http://www.1919funds.com/pdfs/all/1919-Capital-Gains.pdf
AB Funds:
https://www.alliancebernstein.com/sites/investments/us/resources/pdf/FINAL_GEN-5796.pdf
Aberdeen Funds:
https://www.aberdeenstandard.com/docs?editionId=628319b8-0389-42da-9283-be59cf005fff
Acorn Funds:
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/content/columbia/pdf/2019_CAP_GAIN_DISTRIBUTIONS.PDF
Aegis Value Fund:
https://www.aegisfunds.com/assets/pdfs/Aegis_Value_Fund-2019_Distributions_Estimate.pdf
Akre Focus Fund:
https://www.akrefund.com/historical-distributions/
Alger Funds:
https://www.alger.com/Pages/Page.aspx?pageLabel=DividendsDistributions
Allianz G/I:
with NAV: https://us.allianzgi.com/documents/AllianzGI-Funds-2019-Capital-Gains-Distribution-Estimates-with-NAV
w/o NAV: https://us.allianzgi.com/documents/AllianzGI-Funds-2019-Capital-Gains-Distribution-Estimates-without-NAV
Alphacentric Funds:
http://alphacentricfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AlphaCentric-Distributions-2019-12-17-FINAL.pdf
Alps Funds:
https://www.alpsfunds.com/api/resources/c74f8098c3fb4cfef5b73df1832a64d7.pdf
American Century Funds:
https://www.americancentury.com/content/direct/en/insights/guidance-planning/tax-center/preparing-your-taxes/estimated-distributions.html
American Funds(Capital Group):
https://www.capitalgroup.com/advisor/pdf/shareholder/mfgefl-574_2015est.pdf
or
https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/service-and-support/tax-center/2019-year-end-distributions.html
AMG Funds(see AMG Managers Special Equity Fund):
https://www.amgfunds.com/content/dam/amgfunds/documents/other/amgf-capital-gains.pdf
Angel Oak Funds:
https://angeloakcapital.com/2019-estimated-capital-gains/
AQR Funds:
https://funds.aqr.com/-/media/files/fund-documents/2019-estimated-distribution-memo.pdf?la=en&hash=CA724C90C574E85FBAE50CA023DF03A46391F94B
Aqulia Funds:
https://aquilafunds.com/2019/10/17/2016-capital-gain-estimates/
Arbitrage Funds:
https://arbitragefunds.com/news/2019/arbitrage-funds-2019-year-end-distribution-estimates
Ariel Investments:
https://www.arielinvestments.com/distributions/
Aristotle Funds:
https://aristotlefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Aristotle-Funds-2019-Distribution-Estimates-PRELIM-2019-09-30-PUBLIC-USE-ACM-1910-71.pdf
Auxier Asset Fund:
https://www.auxierasset.com/files/uploads//2019-Distribution-Estimates.pdf
Ave Maria Funds:
https://avemariafunds.com/fund-family/dist-2019.html
Baillie Gifford Funds:
https://www.bailliegifford.com/en/usa/professional-investor/literature-library/funds/mutual-funds/estimated-capital-gain-distributions/
Baird Funds:
https://content.rwbaird.com/BairdFunds/PDF/2019-Estimated-Capital-Gains.pdf
Barings Funds:
https://www.barings.com/us/individual/news/press-releases/important-information-about-capital-gains-and-ordinary-income-distributions-december-2019
Baron Funds:
https://www.baronfunds.com/tax-center
BBH Funds:
https://www.bbhfunds.com/resource/blob/39874/36f99ac56fd56e810552841b6401d2e8/bbh-2019-year-end-distributions-estimates-data.pdf
Blackrock Funds:
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/literature/distribution-information/year-end-fund-distribution-estimates-2019.pdf
BMO Funds:
https://www.bmogam.com/us-en/advisors/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/sept-2019-bmo-capital-gains.pdf
Bogle Small Cap Growth Fund:
https://boglefunds.com/mutualfund
Boston Partners Funds:
https://www.boston-partners.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bp-funds-2019-estimated-cap-gain-dist.v2.pdf
Brandes Mutual Funds:
https://www.brandes.com/docs/default-source/mutual-fund/handouts/brandes-capital-gains-estimates-mid-year.pdf?sfvrsn=ff663a6_40
Bridgeway Funds:
https://www.bridgeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-Distributions-for-Website-FINAL.pdf
Brookfield Funds:
https://publicsecurities.brookfield.com/~/media/Files/B/BrookField-BIM-V2/documents/us-mutual/Brookfield Investment Funds Estimated Income Capital Gains 2019_101819.pdf
Brown Capital Management Funds:
https://browncapital.com/sites/default/files/revised_2019_bcm_fund_distributions.pdf
Bruce Fund income only in the amount $12.0160
Buffalo Funds:
https://buffalofunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-Capital-Gains-Distributions.pdf
Calamos Funds:
https://www.calamos.com/globalassets/media/documents/tax-center/2019-calamos-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Calvert Funds:
https://www.calvert.com/media/27727.pdf
Cambiar Funds:
https://www.cambiar.com/capital-gains-2019-estimates/
Castle Investment Management:
Castle Tandem (I class)
https://www.castleim.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/A-Castle-Tandem-Cap-Gain-Estimate-Nov-1-2019.pdf
Castle Focus Fund:
https://www.castleim.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/A-Castle-Focus-Cap-Gain-Estimate-Nov-1-2019.pdf
Causeway Funds:
https://www.causewaycap.com/wp-content/uploads/2019_Causeway-Funds-Prelim-Distributions.pdf
Cavanal Hill Funds:
https://cavanalhillfunds.com/uploads/documents/2019_EstimatedCapitalGains.pdf
Centerstone Investors:
https://centerstoneinv.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Website-Summary-Dividend-Distribution-October-2019.pdf
Champlain Funds:
https://mk0cipvtgu55k27ej46.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Champlain-Estimated-Yr-End-Distributions-2019-vr10919.pdf
Chartwell Funds:
https://www.chartwellip.com/ContentDocumentHandler.ashx?documentId=56962
Chrion Capital Funds:
https://www.chironfunds.com/Data/Sites/3/media/docs/2019-Capital-Gain-Estimates.pdf
City National Rochdale Funds:
https://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/assets/PDFs/Distributions/CNR_Cap_Gains_Distribution_Memo_2019.pdf
Clipper Fund:
https://clipperfund.com/document/read/2019_estimated_year_end_capital_gains_distributions
Cohen & Steers Funds:
https://assets.cohenandsteers.com/assets/content/tax_documents/OEF_2019_Distributions_Estimate_September_30_2019.pdf
Coho Funds:
https://www.cohofunds.com/relative-value-equity-fund/tax-information/
Columbia Threadneedle Funds:
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/content/columbia/pdf/2019_CAP_GAIN_ESTIMATES.PDF
Commerce Funds:
https://www.commercefunds.com/fund-information/distributions
Congress Asset Funds:
http://www.congressasset.com/funds/assets/mutual-fund-capital-gains-estimates-2019.pdf
Copeland Funds:
https://www.copelandfunds.com/system/files/fields/field-file/2019-12/2019_cap_gains_distribution_flyer-estimate.pdf
Credit Suisse Funds:
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/asset-management/docs/us/tax-information/2019/20191118-information-about-2019-estimated-year-end-distributions.pdf
CRM Funds:
http://www.crmfunds.com/funds-overview/shareholder-resources/distributions/
Crossmark-Steward Funds:
https://www.crossmarkglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/Crossmark-Steward-2019-Estimated-Year-End-Distributions-093019.pdf
Cullen Funds:
http://www.cullenfunds.com/documents/cullen-high-dividend-equity-fund-dd-20191120.pdf

This headline makes the accusation sound like a new thing. They've been blocking such proposals for years while claiming to be eco-friendly. It's a classic case of short-term thinking failing to address long-term problems which will affect everyone including Wall Street and the companies these index funds invest in. Yet they claim to think long-term because they index and must buy and hold companies forever. Their failure to support more of these proposals suggests otherwise.

I am surprised and a bit baffled by the suspicion and worry. In doing research on companies that fit the profile and mandates of their existing funds Grandeur Peak would discover quality companies that do not. I don't see that creating a suitable package in the form of a new fund is in any way troublesome, or trying to do too much, especially because The Global Contrarian Fund has been in the works since "Day One". If anyone would like to explain the danger I would be most grateful. Perhaps I am missing something. But at the moment given the (limited ) information I have, the creation of this fund does not seem to me to be reckless or ill advised or worrisome.
I found the following on einnews.com:
Randy Pearce, Chief Investment Officer, provided additional background: “The Global Contrarian Fund has been on our product plan since the inception of the firm. Finding high quality undiscovered and undervalued companies is part of our daily work. Some of these opportunities don’t fit neatly into our growth-focused funds, so we tread lightly or wait for growth to return before buying. The Global Contrarian Fund will allow us to concentrate a portfolio in these kinds of very interesting long-term investments. The general market shift towards passive investing (ETFs and Index Funds) makes this product additionally interesting because there are plenty of good small/micro-cap companies that aren’t captured by passive products and are trading at even more appealing valuations. We’ve waited eight years to launch this fund. The timing feels right both for our team and the market opportunity. When we get a contrarian position right, we believe it will lead to greater price appreciation due to the dual effect of earnings growth and Price/Earnings expansio

Candidly, I do not believe this was in their plan since "day one." In my professional capacity I have talked with GP since the early days and this and the Micro Cap fund were never discussed with investors before. If the plan had been shared at launch, my take would be different, but this just seem like product proliferation and they will lose sight of the ultimate goal - generate returns for clients.

I am surprised and a bit baffled by the suspicion and worry. In doing research on companies that fit the profile and mandates of their existing funds Grandeur Peak would discover quality companies that do not. I don't see that creating a suitable package in the form of a new fund is in any way troublesome, or trying to do too much, especially because The Global Contrarian Fund has been in the works since "Day One". If anyone would like to explain the danger I would be most grateful. Perhaps I am missing something. But at the moment given the (limited ) information I have, the creation of this fund does not seem to me to be reckless or ill advised or worrisome.
I found the following on einnews.com:
Randy Pearce, Chief Investment Officer, provided additional background: “The Global Contrarian Fund has been on our product plan since the inception of the firm. Finding high quality undiscovered and undervalued companies is part of our daily work. Some of these opportunities don’t fit neatly into our growth-focused funds, so we tread lightly or wait for growth to return before buying. The Global Contrarian Fund will allow us to concentrate a portfolio in these kinds of very interesting long-term investments. The general market shift towards passive investing (ETFs and Index Funds) makes this product additionally interesting because there are plenty of good small/micro-cap companies that aren’t captured by passive products and are trading at even more appealing valuations. We’ve waited eight years to launch this fund. The timing feels right both for our team and the market opportunity. When we get a contrarian position right, we believe it will lead to greater price appreciation due to the dual effect of earnings growth and Price/Earnings expansio

In the case of this ETF, I would say that a negative return over the fund's lifetime (6½ years) and just $13.90M AUM would be good reasons to close down the fund. More likely the latter.
https://www.vaneck.com/library/vaneck-vectors-etfs/ymli-fact-sheet-pdf/